I would appreciate your help to get a response to a few questions
raised by the U. of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UW-Milwaukee)'s "Research
Committee."

The UW-Milwaukee Graduate School annually conducts an awards program
for faculty research.  The primary objective of the program is to
support the research & creative activity of Assistant Professors and
newly appointed Associate Professors.  Approximately 70 proposals are
reviewed annually; awards of up to $10,000 are provided to 25-30
faculty; total funding = $185,000.  Applications are made to a
"Research Committee" composed of 12 members, 3 from each of the four
(4) academic divisions [Arts & Humanities, Natural Sciences,
Professions, Social Sciences].

The Committee has wrestled for a number of years with TWO SPECIFIC
PROBLEMS.  At the Committee's last meeting, Graduate School staff were
asked to make inquiries of OTHER INSTITUTIONS THAT MAY ADMINISTER
SIMILAR INTERNAL AWARDS PROGRAMS. The Committee is interested in
procedures and policies that address these same problems:

 1.   In a process which does NOT constitute a "peer review,"
 how does your campus provide sufficient expertise to make
 possible a "scholarly" review/rating of applications?

 It is often the case (with just 12 committee members and
 70 applications) that there are a number of applications
 (in each competition) which none of the committee members
 feels qualified to evaluate as an "expert".

 Applicants are instructed to NOT assume that the
 committee is compose of experts; they are instructed to
 write a proposal to a "generalist" audience. EVEN IF
 APPLICANTS FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS, the "playing field"
 may be uneven, because they may/may not find committee
 member(s) sufficiently familiar with their discipline to
 function as "advocate(s)" for the merit of the proposed
 project.

 What processes/procedures do you employ to address this
 problem?  Is "expert" opinion ever solicited to augment
 the review provided by committee members themselves?

 2.   Is "feedback" provided to those applicants who do NOT
 receive an award?

 Annually, approximately 45 NOT FUNDED notices are sent
 out.  At present, the only "explanation" for the negative
 decision is a description of the selection process
 itself.  We have NOT asked our committee members to
 generate "review panel comments" on the non-funded
 applications.

 Have you had positive/negative experiences with attempts
 to provide such feedback?

I'd very much appreciate your taking a few minutes to respond to these
two questions.  I'd be happy to summarize responses and post the
summary to the group, if there is general interest in "comparing
notes."

Thanks, in advance, for your response.
----------------------------------+------------------------------------------
Kenneth D. Buelow / Assistant Director for Research
The Graduate School / University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
P.O. Box 340 / Milwaukee, WI 53201
414/229-5449   /   xxxxxx@csd.uwm.edu   /   FAX=414/229-6967
----------------------------------+------------------------------------------